On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:36:24PM +0530, BVK Chaitanya wrote:
> I don't have much knowledge in multiboot yet, but this case comes to my mind:
>
> Since GRUB2 is extensible (using modules),
Modules don't really make GRUB extensible. We don't make any promises about
ABI and it's very impractical
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:16:11PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> Bogdan wrote:
> > Is it just me or does this whole thing on abandoning Multiboot 2 seem like
> > a terrible idea? (That's a retorical question since I've already talked to
> > several people in the OSDev com
Bogdan wrote:
> Is it just me or does this whole thing on abandoning Multiboot 2 seem like a
> terrible idea? (That's a retorical question since I've already talked to
> several people in the OSDev community about it.) The only reason why people
> still use Multiboot is because it's the best we'
Is it just me or does this whole thing on abandoning Multiboot 2 seem like a
terrible idea? (That's a retorical question since I've already talked to
several people in the OSDev community about it.) The only reason why people
still use Multiboot is because it's the best we've got. It's not flexi
I don't have much knowledge in multiboot yet, but this case comes to my mind:
Since GRUB2 is extensible (using modules), over time third party
modules would be developed and they may want to pass their own
parameters to kernels; so we should provide some scheme to
differentiate standard (i.e, mul
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:17:54PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> >> I think cpu-independency should come after possible incompatible changes
> >> since if we bring bad but compatible decision to non-x86 then it will be
> >> difficult to eradicate.
> >>
> >
> > I don't
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 10:51:03PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
>
>> Robert Millan wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We have an obvious problem with the Multiboot 2 loader: It's in
>>> severe bitrot. Nobody complains because nobody uses it, which i
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 10:51:03PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have an obvious problem with the Multiboot 2 loader: It's in
> > severe bitrot. Nobody complains because nobody uses it, which is
> > understandable given that nobody
Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have an obvious problem with the Multiboot 2 loader: It's in
> severe bitrot. Nobody complains because nobody uses it, which is
> understandable given that nobody programs for MB2, because it's not
> ready (both in spec and in implementation), and we don't improv
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 05:53:29PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Robert Millan, le Mon 07 Dec 2009 16:08:31 +0100, a écrit :
> > - Release a new revision of Multiboot 1, with only modifications that
> > don't
> > alter the spec. I.e. GRUB Legacy continues to be compliant, and we
> > don'
Robert Millan, le Mon 07 Dec 2009 16:08:31 +0100, a écrit :
> - Release a new revision of Multiboot 1, with only modifications that don't
> alter the spec. I.e. GRUB Legacy continues to be compliant, and we don't
> change the signature. These modifications would basically cope with the
Hi,
We have an obvious problem with the Multiboot 2 loader: It's in
severe bitrot. Nobody complains because nobody uses it, which is
understandable given that nobody programs for MB2, because it's not
ready (both in spec and in implementation), and we don't improve it
because nobody complains,
12 matches
Mail list logo
